If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

^it makes sense this time, Japan is heavily invested in North Korean issues, so its logical to share news with them.

The issue isn't that this happened with the Japanese at the table, the issue is that it happened at a private club with random people milling about who then took to social media to post photos of the exchange.

They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

Nothing changes with the left-leaning media - they've been set at Panic Level 11 since August, and have been crying "It's the end for Trump!" every other day for the last year. I've never seen the left throwing such a fit before, and I never thought they could get worse than they were than when Dubya was president, but they've topped themselves.

If he keeps up the trend, Trump will likely pass Nixon's historically low 24% approval rate by April. And it took Nixon years to build up that level of dislike in the general public.

I was kinda hoping the Flynn stuff would stick to Pence & get that religious hatemonger outta the VP seat, but no such luck. The Americans are outta the frying pad & into the fire if they get rid of the Cheeto in Chief without getting rid of his nutter of a running mate too.

Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

If he keeps up the trend, Trump will likely pass Nixon's historically low 24% approval rate by April. And it took Nixon years to build up that level of dislike in the general public.

I was kinda hoping the Flynn stuff would stick to Pence & get that religious hatemonger outta the VP seat, but no such luck. The Americans are outta the frying pad & into the fire if they get rid of the Cheeto in Chief without getting rid of his nutter of a running mate too.

Governing is different than campaigning and running a big country like to US involves a lot of details that can trip up any President or government. Trump is a big picture guy, not very details oriented. That would be ok if he had a solid team behind him, but he seems to have a lot of B team players behind him - not that experienced or skilled. The best and the brightest seem to have been scared off by his unpredictability and unconventional approaches.

Majority of Europeans in favor of a Trump-style Muslim ban, poll shows

^I think a lot of people say one thing, but feel another, Trump is doing ok in polls though, although the period of sample is too short to really tell, he has barely got office. And a lot of his policies are actually pretty popular globally, not just in the US, despite what the media elites say.

While European leaders have been outspoken in their dislike of President Trump’s immigration restrictions, a new poll indicates that they are not speaking on behalf of their voters -- and that a majority of Europeans are in favor of a Muslim ban that would go much further than Trump’s order.

The Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs -- a London-based think tank -- issued a wide-ranging poll that surveyed 10,000 citizens across 10 European countries on their views on a Muslim ban. Specifically it asked respondents if they would support “all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.”

Such a ban would be well beyond President Trump’s executive order, which was issued after the poll was conducted. Trump’s order imposed a 90-day moratorium on refugees and immigrants from seven terror hotspots, did not directly target Muslims, and excluded major Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

However, despite the question going well above and beyond what Trump enacted, and specifically targeting Muslims, an average of 55 percent of participants agreed with an indefinite halt.

“Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread,” experts at the think tank concluded.

Trump has never done well in "polls", but 3 weeks after being sworn in is WAY too early to tell how much voters are going to agree/disagree with the job he has done. Next presidential election is 4 years away.

If he keeps up the trend, Trump will likely pass Nixon's historically low 24% approval rate by April.

What trend? Where are you getting this information that Trump's popularity is in decline?

It's pretty early to be seeing much for trends, but Trump's approval ratings are the lowest since they have been monitored accurately. He's already sitting at about 40%, whereas most Presidents immediately after inauguration are sitting somewhere in the high 50's or low 60's.

The Republicans would love to keep Trump. Considering they already hold a majority in the Senate, and in 2018 midterm election the Republicans only have to defend 9 seats while the Dems have to defend 23 (some of them in states that Trump flipped last election), the Republicans have an opportunity for a supermajority.

With Trump as President and a Senate supermajority, the Republicans could appoint any Supreme Court Justices and amend the Constitution however they wanted. They know they have a rare opportunity coming up. They aren't going to throw it away.

It appears that that damned biased Mainstream Media is how Mike Pence found out the facts. (imagine the horror)

Trump knew Flynn misled White House weeks before ouster: officials

Pence spokesman Marc Lotter said Pence became aware that he had received "incomplete information" from Flynn only after the first Washington Post report Thursday night. Pence learned about the Justice Department warnings to the White House around the same time.

WASHINGTON -- Just six days into his presidency, Donald Trump was informed his national security adviser had misled his vice-president about contacts with Russia. Trump kept his No. 2 in the dark and waited nearly three weeks before ousting the aide, Michael Flynn, citing a slow but steady erosion of trust, White House officials said Tuesday.Flynn was interviewed by the FBI about his telephone conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., a sign his ties to Russia had caught the attention of law enforcement officials.
But in the White House's retelling of Flynn's stunning downfall, his error was not that he discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russian before the inauguration -- a potential violation of a rarely enforced law -- but the fact that he denied it for weeks, apparently misleading Vice-President Mike Pence and other senior Trump aides about the nature of the conversations.

White House officials said they conducted a thorough review of Flynn's interactions, including transcripts of calls secretly recorded by U.S. intelligence officials, but found nothing illegal.

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN...

Russia deploys missile in apparent treaty violation
(CNN)Moscow has deployed a cruise missile in an apparent treaty violation, a senior military official told CNN Tuesday.

The move is just the latest in a string of Russian provocations in the early days of the Trump administration, which has called for warmer relations with the Kremlin.

The traditional US adversary has also positioned a spy ship off the coast of Delaware and carried out flights near a US Navy warship, concerning American officials. The administration has not officially drawn any links between the three events.

Trump's opponents are really grasping hard to ANYTHING that they think will destroy him. Every week there's more hearsay, rumors and propaganda. It's as if his opponents learned nothing from the campaign.

These events strongly mirror when Thomas Jefferson's operatives in the press routinely accused John Adams of being a British spy or plant.

Because really, there is zero substance to the CNN and NYTimes articles. Here's the basic recap of each: some "official" saying there's a "possible link" between Trump and Russia, and then references to other lies spread by the media like the golden showers (when CNN said they didn't say that it happened, they were just reporting it) and a little discussion about Flynn's resignation and its connection to Russia. They say their anonymous "sources" say that some "aides" (nobody knows who they are) had contact with Russian officials. Who - Roger Stone? Manafort? Who cares? They are clearly talking about some nobodies otherwise they'd give some high level names.

Top these tabloid pieces off with a clickbait headline, and they've published another anti-Trump "story" to whip the anti-Trumpers into a frenzy and give them hope that they can somehow reverse the result of the election.

If there was zero substance, why did Trump demand Flynn resign?
You may recall that it was the Washington Post that exposed the Watergate Scandal.

Trump and his team have so many ties to Russia that they continue to deny and at the same time have made enemies in the intelligence community who now have a very good reason to expose them of lying and treason.

Everything in the White House is recorded and they have large files on Trump's staff regarding their payments from foreign governments such as Flynn's obvious links to Russian state television ( their propaganda arm ) and Putin himself. The smell of treason is in the air and Trump cannot stop the leaks of proud Americans who will protect the country, democracy and the Constitution over the schemes of a pompous President.

He is done and will be gone within his first 100 days.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Because really, there is zero substance to the CNN and NYTimes articles. Here's the basic recap of each: some "official" saying there's a "possible link" between Trump and Russia, and then references to other lies spread by the media like the golden showers (when CNN said they didn't say that it happened, they were just reporting it) and a little discussion about Flynn's resignation and its connection to Russia. They say their anonymous "sources" say that some "aides" (nobody knows who they are) had contact with Russian officials. Who - Roger Stone? Manafort? Who cares? They are clearly talking about some nobodies otherwise they'd give some high level names.

Top these tabloid pieces off with a clickbait headline, and they've published another anti-Trump "story" to whip the anti-Trumpers into a frenzy and give them hope that they can somehow reverse the result of the election.

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

...

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the officials’ accounts in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

He added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

Because really, there is zero substance to the CNN and NYTimes articles. Here's the basic recap of each: some "official" saying there's a "possible link" between Trump and Russia, and then references to other lies spread by the media like the golden showers (when CNN said they didn't say that it happened, they were just reporting it) and a little discussion about Flynn's resignation and its connection to Russia. They say their anonymous "sources" say that some "aides" (nobody knows who they are) had contact with Russian officials. Who - Roger Stone? Manafort? Who cares? They are clearly talking about some nobodies otherwise they'd give some high level names.

Top these tabloid pieces off with a clickbait headline, and they've published another anti-Trump "story" to whip the anti-Trumpers into a frenzy and give them hope that they can somehow reverse the result of the election.

How about former NSA analyst and counterintelligence officer John Schindler writing at Observer.com (founded by Jared Kushner).

Ambassador Kislyak surely knew his conversations with Flynn were being intercepted, and it’s incomprehensible that a career military intelligence officer who once headed a major intelligence agency didn’t realize the same. Whether Flynn is monumentally stupid or monumentally arrogant is the big question that hangs over this increasingly strange affair.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

...

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the officials’ accounts in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

He added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

This is the NYTimes article I was referring to. Did you read it? It says and proves literally nothing. It re-states that it has found that Trump has no ties to Russia. All rumors (like every single story trying to connect Trump to the Kremlin).

Everything in the White House is recorded and they have large files on Trump's staff regarding their payments from foreign governments such as Flynn's obvious links to Russian state television ( their propaganda arm ) and Putin himself.

Where did you get that?

Flynn's recording is from December (while Obama was still president). And he got his hand slapped for not fully disclosing to Mike Pence what he discussed about sanctions (basically lawyer talk). Flynn isn't part of Trump's cabinet either. We don't know if Trump asked him to resign or if Flynn stepped down himself.

It's a bunch of nothing, but the media is SO desperate to bash Trump with something that they'll stir up all kinds of nonsense be "reporting" things, but not saying they are actually true.

Oh, and Flynn is also one of the few registered Democrats that was close to Trump, which is kind of funny that he was the one who screwed up.

If the left-leaning media really believes they have uncovered something illegal, they can name their source. Otherwise they are just spreading rumors, and you can bet everyone will forget about this incident (just like they forgot about all the women who accused Trump of raping them, or the "Russians hacked the election" stories that provided zero proof to anyone), and the media will move on to the next Trump hit-piece lie by next Tuesday.

You cannot state that the video and photographic evidence of Flynn's close ties to the Kremlin are fake news.

Sean Spicer's repudiations and double speak just add to the controversy.

Flynn and Putin sitting side by sideHe was one of the most respected intel officers of his generation. Now he’s leading ‘Lock her up’ chants.
By Dana Priest and Greg Miller August 15, 2016 (Note the date of this article)https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.0eeca0a6d1af

The American people have the right to know what was said by Flynn to the Russian Ambassador in the 5 call he had prior to Jan 20th. Flynn is a public servant and his actions may have violated the Logan Act, an act of treason and that various members of the administration may have also broke US laws and covering up these possible violations become a classic conspiracy and coverup that reaches to the top of the administration, Donald J. Trump.

There are serious allegations to investigate of the highest order.

Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 15-02-2017 at 09:29 AM.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

That Flynn lied about what he said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was first revealed by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who has built his career on repeating what his CIA sources tell him. In his January 12 column, Ignatius wrote: “According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.”

There are dedicated and patriotic American whistleblowers that would willingly go to prison for felony just to expose the illegal acts of this administration.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

MrOliers, honestly, can you tell me that if Hillary Clinton won the election and her staff were the same team with the same issues that you would be defending her and stating that the media is meking fake news?

Your hypocrisy and denial of simple facts are astounding.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

First off, you assume that the media would report they wrongdoings of Hillary Clinton at all. More specifically, to answer your question - no, I wouldn't trust what CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, or any other media outlet colluding with the Democrat party or Hillary's campaign reported. I tend not to believe news that comes from any source citing "anonymous sources", and I do not even bother to read opinion pieces from media outlets. They cannot be treated as factual, because they are so often wrong and never corrected.

And that is all we have seen from the press since Hillary Clinton won the nomination to oppose Donald trump. Even in Canadian news.

Those news outlets (all owned by Billionaires who openly dislike Donald Trump, by the way) glossed over everything Hillary did and vilified everything about Donald Trump all year long. They never reported any positive news about Trump. Not once. They even gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton before the televised debates. Bias became even more clear when it was exposed (when the public got to read Podesta's and DNC's emails) that they colluded with the Democrats and Clinton's campaign.

The final straw was when they lashed out on-air and even CRIED (some of them were debate moderators) because their "chosen one" didn't win the presidency!

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

...

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the officials’ accounts in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

He added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

This is the NYTimes article I was referring to. Did you read it? It says and proves literally nothing. It re-states that it has found that Trump has no ties to Russia. All rumors (like every single story trying to connect Trump to the Kremlin).

We're nobodies. We'll never see the "proof" on a whole lot of issues.

At our level, media consumers, we''re not working in the world of facts and proof anyway. Think back to the campaign when Clinton "was not long for this world", had heart or whatever issues. Or the whole missing e-mail thing. Or the last minute FBI case-reopening over newly discovered e-mails, that in the end found, or at least reported, nothing. There were few facts there, just speculation.

My advice, don't take anything seriously and don't be prejudicial in term of news sources because they all have their failings. Even the extreme right and left sources periodically get their facts right (while of course, typically leaving out 90% of relevant contextual information).

Well I stand corrected - you found an article on CNN that was critical of Hillary's email scandal.

Still, how trustworthy is CNN when just last month they reported on Buzzfeed's made-up smear piece of Donald Trump claiming he allegedly hired Russian prostitutes to urinate on Obama's hotel bed, and Vladamir Putin has a video of it? Then when pressed on the story CNN said, "Oh - we're not saying it happened, we're just reporting that someone else said it happened". What a joke.

Well I stand corrected - you found an article on CNN that was critical of Hillary's email scandal.

Still, how trustworthy is CNN when just last month they reported on Buzzfeed's made-up smear piece of Donald Trump claiming he allegedly hired Russian prostitutes to urinate on Obama's hotel bed, and Vladamir Putin has a video of it? Then when pressed on the story CNN said, "Oh - we're not saying it happened, we're just reporting that someone else said it happened". What a joke.

So what is a trustworthy news source IYHO?

Fox? New York Post? Breitbart? National Enquirer?

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

We're not working in the world of facts and proof. Think back to the campaign when Clinton "was not long for this world", had heart or whatever issues.

You mean when everyone in the media denied that she had ill health, then she suddenly seized up and passed out at the 9/11 memorial event and got chucked into her scooby van? Then they said it was because she was overheated. Then they said it was pneumonia. Then when she was seen hours later posing with a little girl on a sidewalk for photos, they said it is a kind of non-contageous pneumonia? Everyone lied to us that time.

Or the whole missing e-mail thing.

You mean where the Oversight Committee proved that Hillary Clinton's server was deliberately deep-cleaned with BleachBit so the 33,000 emails deleted on her server could never be retrieved?

Copies of those still may exist and they may be released one day. The FBI has dumped a few packages of redacted emails from Hillary's time in office that were never handed to Wikileaks.

Or the last minute FBI case-reopening over newly discovered e-mails, that in the end found, or at least reported, nothing.

You mean when the NYPD and FBI said that some of Hillary's emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop (after he got arrested for sexting with minors again)? Those have not been made public - I hope those get released some day.

For the record, I also think it would be fair to hear Flynn's phone call to the Russian ambassador that was recorded. However, we may never get that through a Freedom of Information Act request because Flynn was still a civilian at the time.

What factual source are you talking about - The NY Times or CNN article that disingenuously calls the Russian ambassador that Flynn spoke to a "Russian operative"?

EDIT - Oh, never mind. I just saw the revisionist edit you made to your post above mine to "prove" me wrong and talk down to me afterwards. That is dishonest. Very dishonest.

Is this a YUGE transgression?

Again, this is a forum. An anonymous forum!!!!!

We should be having fun here. We're here voluntarily! Trying to be straight and factual is an honourable goal but if someone isn't, so what? Who in their right mind trusts what they read on any forum without checking it somewhere else if it's of any consequence to one's real life.

I revisit my posts regularly. So don't take anything I say seriously or as final. I change my mind all the time. I really want to be someone that changes positions as facts and alternative facts change and evolve and hopefully affect my thinking.

Sometimes type a couple words then get interrupted with something real and important and so come back later.

We're not working in the world of facts and proof. Think back to the campaign when Clinton "was not long for this world", had heart or whatever issues.

You mean when everyone in the media denied that she had ill health, then she suddenly seized up and passed out at the 9/11 memorial event and got chucked into her scooby van? Then they said it was because she was overheated. Then they said it was pneumonia. Then when she was seen hours later posing with a little girl on a sidewalk for photos, they said it is a kind of non-contageous pneumonia? Everyone lied to us that time.

Or the whole missing e-mail thing.

You mean where the Oversight Committee proved that Hillary Clinton's server was deliberately deep-cleaned with BleachBit so the 33,000 emails deleted on her server could never be retrieved?

Copies of those still may exist and they may be released one day. The FBI has dumped a few packages of redacted emails from Hillary's time in office that were never handed to Wikileaks.

Or the last minute FBI case-reopening over newly discovered e-mails, that in the end found, or at least reported, nothing.

You mean when the NYPD and FBI said that some of Hillary's emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop (after he got arrested for sexting with minors again)? Those have not been made public - I hope those get released some day.

For the record, I also think it would be fair to hear Flynn's phone call to the Russian ambassador that was recorded. However, we may never get that through a Freedom of Information Act request because Flynn was still a civilian at the time.

Yes, exactly. None of it came out fully and accurately but instead in dribs and drabs from all kinds of different sources and the complete picture in full context on any of those issues still isn't available.

Her health. Tell me what her health is really like. Where's the proof of anything. Or with the e-mails that were cleaned professionally as one would expect when e-mails are selected for deletion - by her lawyers I believe. Why officials didn't seize the server I don't know. The legality of it all, I have no idea. Proof that what her lawyers did was wrong. I don't think it was ever addressed.

If the left-leaning media really believes they have uncovered something illegal, they can name their source. Otherwise they are just spreading rumors, and you can bet everyone will forget about this incident (just like they forgot about all the women who accused Trump of raping them, or the "Russians hacked the election" stories that provided zero proof to anyone), and the media will move on to the next Trump hit-piece lie by next Tuesday.

If MrOliers does not think that the Russian Ambassador is not a Russian operative then he does not understand that an operative can be anything from a worker (as in working for the Government of Russia, which is factual), to an agent of the Russian Government to transmit Russian interests, collect information and report his findings (again factual function) to being a person secretly employed in espionage for a government (conjecture but very plausible)

It is conjecture on MrOliers part that the use of the words "Russian operative" is always a spy.

“It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

“I'M THE GUY THEY CALLED DEEP THROAT”Despite three decades of intense speculation, the identity of “Deep Throat”—the source who leaked key details of Nixon's Watergate cover-up to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein—has never been revealed. Now, at age 91, W. Mark Felt, number two at the F.B.I. in the early 70s, is finally admitting to that historic, anonymous role. In an exclusive, Vanity Fair puts a name and face to one of American democracy's heroes.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/polit...epthroat200507

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Just a quote here but read on in the article for some interesting points:

It’s Time for a Proper Investigation of Trump’s Russia Ties - The New Yorker

In a piece published Tuesday morning, my colleague Ryan Lizza wrote that a White House official he spoke to made Flynn out to be a “rogue operative, duping everyone in the White House about his contact with Russian officials.” This contact includes calls between Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s Ambassador to Washington, on December 29th, the day that the Obama Administration imposed sanctions on some of Vladimir Putin’s cronies in response to revelations about Russian hacking during election season. ...

This is an area heavy in speculation and light on confirmed facts, but we do know some things for sure. For one thing, ...

President Trump once again unleashed a fearsome barrage of tweets on Wednesday morning. The target was the New York Times’s new report that intelligence officials have established contacts between Russian intelligence and Trump campaign officials during the campaign.

Trump attacked the news media again, railing that “the fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred.” He also blasted the intelligence services, claiming that they are “illegally” giving information to the media, which, he opined, is “just like Russia.”

This has become a pattern, in which Trump deals with setbacks by lashing out at other institutions, including ones that can function as a check on his power. When the courts blocked his immigration ban, he blasted both the courts and the news media for making us less safe, in what seemed to be designed to lay the groundwork to blame them for a future terrorist attack, a move that even some Republicans criticized for its authoritarian tendencies. This appeared to be a test run of sorts, in which Trump was experimenting with how far he could go in delegitimizing the institutions that might act as a check on his power later.

The Times’ new report is actually pretty carefully drawn. It notes that phone records and intercepted calls show “repeated contacts” between members of the Trump campaign and “senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.” These were discovered at around the time that evidence emerged that Russia was trying to interfere in the election. The report stressed that intelligence officials did not name particular Trump campaign officials, other than Paul Manafort, and have not seen evidence of collusion (“so far”) designed to influence our political process.

CNN also weighed in with a similar investigation, reporting that “high-level advisers close to” Trump were in “constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to U.S. intelligence.” CNN added that Trump had been briefed on this after the election. If that last detail is true, then it means Trump knows that intelligence officials have, indeed, concluded that this happened. Which might explain why some of his tweets today sort of function as confirmation of the stories, by blasting intel agencies for leaking classified information.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Hillary's private server was thoroughly investigated and proven to exist.

There still is no connection proven between Trump's campaign and Russia. None. Nobody can find any (and don't kid yourself- they are digging). This NY Times story itself (3rd paragraph) even says so. Still only pure speculation from "unnamed sources" about some people close to Trump, but not in his campaign:

You mean besides the major campaign advisor who got fired after it was found out he'd accepted millions of dollars off the books from the political party of the guy who's currently in exile in Russia due to high treason in Ukraine?

Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Hillary's private server was thoroughly investigated and proven to exist.

There still is no connection proven between Trump's campaign and Russia. None. Nobody can find any (and don't kid yourself- they are digging). This NY Times story itself (3rd paragraph) even says so. Still only pure speculation from "unnamed sources" about some people close to Trump, but not in his campaign:

It's that pesky requirement to investigate and get people to reveal what they know. Proof here means you likely reveal your surveillance methodologies, and out the names of the Russian "operatives" some of whom may just be russian citizens and government staff or might be spies and worth much more if not revealed.

What they seem to have absolute proof of is that a number of phone calls have been made and they apparently have recordings of conversations. Much like Clinton, they knew a private server existed. The contents though were another matter and it took months to get to some of that detail. So there's layers of proof required and I'm sure supporter of either Clinton or Trump would never be satisfied with whatever layers were revealed as there is always more detail that is claimed will make it either all ok, or all criminal.

Charlie Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N), said some of U.S. President Donald Trump's ideas may prove constructive for the country, tempering comments a year ago suggesting that his fellow Republican was not morally qualified for the White House.

"Well, I've gotten more mellow," Munger said Wednesday's annual meeting at the publishing company Daily Journal Corp (DJCO.O) in Los Angeles, which he chairs.

"Just roll with it. If there's a little danger, what the hell, you're not going to live forever anyway."...

Charlie Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N), said some of U.S. President Donald Trump's ideas may prove constructive for the country, tempering comments a year ago suggesting that his fellow Republican was not morally qualified for the White House.

"Well, I've gotten more mellow," Munger said Wednesday's annual meeting at the publishing company Daily Journal Corp (DJCO.O) in Los Angeles, which he chairs.

"Just roll with it. If there's a little danger, what the hell, you're not going to live forever anyway."...

bolding was mine

I hope that's sarcasm in the last line, otherwise the US is in much bigger trouble than I thought. We seemed to have moved from a society from those cheery bumper stickers that said "I am spending my childrens' inheritance" to one where the bumper sticker could be "I'm not going to live forever, so I am ok with blowing up my childrens world"

At a campaign rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in October, then-candidate Donald Trump proclaimed, "I love WikiLeaks." He went on to read hacked emails related to opponent Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks had made public. Trump referred to the documents several times during the final stretch of a bitter campaign.

Remember also that it's not only the US that has intelligence services. Many countries living in the shadow of Russia also have a vested interest in listening in on what they can and they share their intel.

PRT said: "No matter what the spin, Trump getting upset over the leaks and stating that these are illegal acts actually validates that the leaks are factual"
So do you agree that the wikileaks from the Democrat campaign are factual as well? The Democrats were also upset.

Trump getting upset over the leaks and stating that these are illegal acts actually validates that the leaks are factual.

Nobody is disputing legitimacy because there is nothing incriminating (nor unethical) in the content of Flynn's phone call with the Russian ambassador. Trump is upset that leaks are happening, not about the content of the leaks.

I have a suspicion that you don't actually understand what happened, nor why Flynn resigned.

The Democrates tried as hard as they could to distract from the evidence and point out that the hacking/leaking to get the evidence was an illegal act. Trump and senior Republicans are just doing the same thing.

Is a court, isn't illegally obtained evidence inadmissible? Which seems odd to me but so be it.

Also, with Flynn why didn't Trump request that a transcript of the conversations be released and out of that transparency the public could have assessed Flynn and maybe Trump could have kept him on?

You mean besides the major campaign advisor who got fired after it was found out he'd accepted millions of dollars off the books from the political party of the guy who's currently in exile in Russia due to high treason in Ukraine?

Yes, he was fired for being a crook. And fired a long time ago. What's the problem?

The Democrates tried as hard as they could to distract from the evidence and point out that the hacking/leaking to get the evidence was an illegal act. Trump and senior Republicans are just doing the same thing.

Charlie Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N), said some of U.S. President Donald Trump's ideas may prove constructive for the country, tempering comments a year ago suggesting that his fellow Republican was not morally qualified for the White House.

"Well, I've gotten more mellow," Munger said Wednesday's annual meeting at the publishing company Daily Journal Corp (DJCO.O) in Los Angeles, which he chairs.

"Just roll with it. If there's a little danger, what the hell, you're not going to live forever anyway."...

bolding was mine

I hope that's sarcasm in the last line, otherwise the US is in much bigger trouble than I thought. We seemed to have moved from a society from those cheery bumper stickers that said "I am spending my childrens' inheritance" to one where the bumper sticker could be "I'm not going to live forever, so I am ok with blowing up my childrens world"

Munger is the one that said after the financial crisis that; 'they saved the US from financial collapse and avoiding a 1930s situation where a Hiter could rise up, plus he said people have suck it up and cope to get through tough times...'

The Democrates tried as hard as they could to distract from the evidence and point out that the hacking/leaking to get the evidence was an illegal act. Trump and senior Republicans are just doing the same thing.

PRT said: "No matter what the spin, Trump getting upset over the leaks and stating that these are illegal acts actually validates that the leaks are factual"
So do you agree that the wikileaks from the Democrat campaign are factual as well? The Democrats were also upset.

Yes

Did I ever state that it dis not happen? We also know that so far there has been investigations of those leaks and found nothing to lay charges on.

Going back to the subject on hand. Was it not Trump, a private citizen, who loudly encouraged the Russians to hack and expose more emails of his opponents? Do you support his acts?

Is it not his choice of campaign manager who had taken money from the Russians?

Is it not Trump's chosen national security adviser that had known links to the Russians?

When Trump was warned by the attorney general that Flynn was a security risk that she was fired and not Flynn?

Was it only when the Washington Post story came out did Trump fire Flynn?

If there was no issue, then why is Mike Pence so angry?

Even if you deny everything, is there not enough questions to be answered on serious matters of national security and possible foreign interference in the election to warrant an investigation?

Or do you choose to act like the three monkeys and want to sweep the whole issue under the rug?

Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-02-2017 at 06:43 AM.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

The issue stems from Flynn talking about lifting Russian sanctions. Flynn did not tell the Vice President that the discussion about lifting Russian sanctions happened during his call, and he lied about it to the press afterwards. Cannot have a NSA advisor being untruthful to the Vice President, so Flynn resigned. That's it.

Remember, this conversation occurred while Obama punted the Russian diplomats from the USA (which makes sense as to why such a discussion would take place). It is also not abnormal for administrations to talk to foreign countries during the transition period, before being sworn in. So that's not an issue either.

An ethical lapse in communication is a problem, but it's not criminal.

Even if you deny everything, is there not enough questions to be answered on serious matters of national security and possible foreign interference in the election to warrant an investigation?

It looks too obviously like propaganda against Trump. I don't believe this conspiracy theory conjured up by the Democrats, and most others don't either. Especially when you consider that Obama legalized deep state propaganda against US citizens in 2012:

Maybe at one point you could trust the press when they reported "unnamed sources". But not anymore. When even NBC is breaking ranks and reports something different than CNN and NY Times, it's probably fake news (or CNN they are incompetent and can't get their stories straight):

NBC's Pete Williams reports (as we have all along) that investigators have found no collusion between Trump campaign and contacts in Russia.

The issue stems from Flynn talking about lifting Russian sanctions. Flynn did not tell the Vice President that the discussion about lifting Russian sanctions happened during his call, and he lied about it to the press afterwards. Cannot have a NSA advisor being untruthful to the Vice President, so Flynn resigned. That's it.

Remember, this conversation occurred while Obama punted the Russian diplomats from the USA (which makes sense as to why such a discussion would take place). It is also not abnormal for administrations to talk to foreign countries during the transition period, before being sworn in. So that's not an issue either.

An ethical lapse in communication is a problem, but it's not criminal.

Q: So the Logan Act was not violated?
A: A thorough investigation has not been convened.

Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-02-2017 at 07:39 AM.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

I think that the last year (starting with Brexit) has opened a lot of eyes in world and national politics. There seems to be less of a right/left divide, and more of an emerging nationalist/globalist divide.

In US politics we see nationalist "rebels" fighting globalist "establishment" politicians in each party.

We have Republican nationalists (E.g. Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul) duking it out behind the scenes with Republican establishment globalists (John McCain, Paul Ryan, the Bush family). We see it in the Democrat party too, with nationalists (Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Manchin) seen as rebels to establishment Democrat globalists (Obama, Clintons, Pelosi).

And this is 100% speculation, but to me it appears that, for the most part, the US Military is loyal to Trump (and US nationalism), and the leaders of US Intelligence Agencies are more advocates for globalism. It sounds like a crazy idea to us Canadians with our predictable politics, but the USA's entire existence has been shaped by wars on their land. This current political landscape is just another type of "war". It certainly feels much different than any other election in our lifetimes, doesn't it?

PRT, there was no German election in 1933, The election was in 1932, after months of wrangling Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January of 1933.
If you're going to pretend to be a student of history at least get your dates right, not doing so leaves you a subject of mockery.